The aberration of the defenseless transport

[Der Kuenstler]

Let me start this off first with a quote:

“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow

For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.

I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:

1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.

Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.

2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.

Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.

OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.

VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!

[BJCard]

On some level I agree with you but at least now a nations surface ships have to defend transports…  a player cannot lose transports first in battle.  Kind of unrealistic for a navy to be screened by transports, don’t you think?

[Eqqman]

@BJCard:

Kind of unrealistic for a navy to be screened by transports, don’t you think?

They could have left the roll @1 and just made it so the TTs must always be the last to be assigned hits… which is a newly implemented rule anyway.

[Der Kuenstler]

@BJCard:

Kind of unrealistic for a navy to be screened by transports, don’t you think?

That is true - and unrealistic. Yet these things happen a lot in this game. For example, If a carrier and a destroyer is attacked by a battleship, we all know the battleship is going to be aiming at the carrier, yet the DD is always chosen first as a casualty. If a sub and a carrier is attacked by a DD and a plane, the sub is taken first, even though both attackers would realistically be going for the carrier. If 6 tanks attack 3 tanks and 3 infantry, the infantry always die first, though the tanks would want to take out the tanks, and so on.

At this scale everything is a bit abstracted. The point is, if you do choose your transports first, you are losing IPCs and losing your ability to move troops across water. You are losing something, especially when they cost 8 IPCs. At that price, you might as well send in DDs which attack and defend @ 2. You have to make a decision - which is good, fun, and fits with the rest of the game.

The “transports must be chosen last” rule only takes away more of your decision power as a commander. The naval battles become more scripted and less interesting.

[elevenjerk]

Kind of off the subject of transports but but in the spirit of unit selection in battle.  My buddy and I were talking about and addition that could be cool.  When it comes to air force, have there be a way that they could choose the ships they want to attack in a navy or units in a land battle at the cost of a round of firing.  Turn 1 they fire at all tanks or a carrier/battleship or destroyers (to save some subs).  Turn 2 of attack they sit out.  Didn’t think too much on it.  There would be obvious ways that rule could get abused though.  Still thought it seemed kind of cool.

Is that dumb? Any ideas on how to make it work fairly.  Got to balance it where it benefits and hurts the air force to be able to be selective in a battle.

[BJCard]

Well, the sea battles actually make a bit of sense (other than the two hit units taking a hit first)- Destroyers and Submarines are screening ships so they would get killed first, followed by cruisers, carriers, battleships, and lastly the transports they were protecting!

Land battles don’t work obviously- but it is abstract and you could theorize that armor isn’t merely an armored column, but an elite division of mobile troops, perhaps surviving longer than conscripted infantry.

[Der Kuenstler]

@BJCard:

Well, the sea battles actually make a bit of sense (other than the two hit units taking a hit first)- Destroyers and Submarines are screening ships so they would get killed first, followed by cruisers, carriers, battleships, and lastly the transports they were protecting!

Your “two hit” example was better than mine - I didn’t think of that. Another example is AA fire - in some versions you can pick fighters as casualties when the opponent would obviously be aiming at bombers.

Another question is brought up: would the navy (20 IPC battleships) “always” sink itself fighting to protect transports? Even empty ones?

[BJCard]

@Der:

@BJCard:

Well, the sea battles actually make a bit of sense (other than the two hit units taking a hit first)- Destroyers and Submarines are screening ships so they would get killed first, followed by cruisers, carriers, battleships, and lastly the transports they were protecting!

Your “two hit” example was better than mine - I didn’t think of that. Another example is AA fire - in some versions you can pick fighters as casualties when the opponent would obviously be aiming at bombers.

Another question is brought up: would the navy (20 IPC battleships) “always” sink itself fighting to protect transports? Even empty ones?

Well, this is an abstract game, so you could conclude that Transports also double as ‘supply’ ships for the Navy and/or island garrisons;  In this case then, maybe some heavier units such as a Battleship may sacrifice itself to protect transports.  Heck, the Transports are probably fairly distant from the fighting anyway.

Perhaps you could say that Submarines on a first strike could hit transports first- or that transports could opt to retreat from battle after the attacker rolls for attack.  It isn’t like they are dead in the water- many transports were fairly fast (faster than Submarines anyway).

[Kingpin2010]

My group has kicked this around to come up with a solution. What we came up with is against warships it’s same rules, but if the transport is attacked by just planes that it can defend at a 1.

[Der Kuenstler]

Interesting. Has anyone tried using classic rule transports except just raising the price to 10 IPCs? It would seem to me people would not want to use them for fodder anymore at the higher price, or at least not as a first choice.

[DizzKneeLand33]

I like the rule where they protect themselves on the small board, and I like the rule where they don’t protect themselves on the large boards.  It is a complete change of game mechanics, and it’s almost like arguing “I wish the king’s bishop could jump over pieces.”  I mean, I love both ways of playing, but the rules are the rules, and you must adjust accordingly.  Trust me, I loved the return fire of the British trannie in the Lab sea in classic when playing Allies…. but, this isn’t classic… and, honestly, this is more realistic and strategic.  To send unguarded trannies into evil waters so that they can defend at a 1 is only inviting a dicefest… I like G40 because those kinds of dicefests have been seriously curtailed…

From a lifelong A&A player, and 1500 game CD player (2nd and 3rd edition) in the 1998-present range.  :)

[Gekkepop]

I never liked the defenseless transport rule either, it makes the game hinge too much on a few dice rolls. If your major fleet gets killed with one enemy unit left you could instantly lose 70 IPCs of transports as well. This makes it so the allies have to invest much more in fleet and had to be made a lot stronger in other areas to compensate.

[Spendo02]

They hybrid approach of 8 IPC transports, defending @1 but have to be taken last as casualties is probably my preferred approach.

I don’t care much for defenseless units.  Particularly when a Bomber from Hawaii can swoop into Japan’s SZ and blow up 3 TT and land in Mongolia with no risk of dying.  Granted Scrambles can defend that but the point is still the same.

I think it is one of the biggest issues with Japan taking all those unprotected US islands, because it is not worth the investment to take a non-value island when you have to divert a fleet to defend from the US arbitrarily sending aircraft to swoop out and clear all those TT with zero chance of escape or defense.

[Derek]

I would support transports costing 8 IPC and defending at a one.

However i dont think they should be able to be taken as casualties before surface warships/planes/ or subs.

So best of both worlds ;)

[BJCard]

Well, everyone knows the stories about the infamous WWII Transports killing aircraft and Battleships!  oh… wait.

Nope, defenseless transports are best.  Really does it make sense that a huge battle fleet would screen itself with Transports?  No- destroyers and submarines.

While there may have been instances where an ‘armed transport’ takes out a submarine or couple fighters- I know of exactly zero instances of a 100 transports taking out 500 planes or 20+ submarines.

Remember these units are representing a huge number of individual tanks, planes, etc.

[Der Kuenstler]

Larry Harris said this about transports in 2007 on his site:

“I will say this… Transports are considered to be lightly defended with escorts. Additional ships provide additional defense and so on.” (Posted: Fri 23.Feb, 2007)

So originally transports were not to be thought of as just transports.

Two maxims of the game have generally been:

1. every decision involves some risk (dice rolls)
2. defender chooses his own casualties

The new transport rules violate both.

[BJCard]

Looks like Larry’s position on Transports has ‘evolved’ then.

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

The addition of Destroyers and Cruisers negated the ‘Transports have defense’ line of thought.  Back in Classic day there were only BBs, CVs, TTs, and SSs…

[Der Kuenstler]

@BJCard:

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

LOL - And I can only imagine a Naval commander saying “we must try to keep this empty $7 transport at all costs! All $20 BBs, $14 CVs, $10 planes and $12 CAs, must die first!”

Both scenarios are absurd, but at least the first one is consistent with the rest of the game.

[bongaroo]

I hated the way transports worked in 2nd edition.  Most fleets were a bunch of transports with only a couple of carriers with planes and maybe a battleship.  The introduction of cruisers, destroyers, and multi hit capital ships makes a lot more sense.

You keep talking about how everything has risk, well you took the risk of sending an undefended transport.

-edit-

Yes, those battleships or other fighting ships better not just watch the transports get creamed when they could defend them.  What kind of heartless captain would let practically defenseless ships get slaughtered nearby?

[BJCard]

@Der:

@BJCard:

I can only imagine a Naval commander saying ‘Send in the Transports, we can’t have any damage to our Destroyers!’.

LOL - And I can only imagine a Naval commander saying “we must try to keep this empty $7 transport at all costs! All $20 BBs, $14 CVs, $10 planes and $12 CAs, must die first!”

Both scenarios are absurd, but at least the first one is consistent with the rest of the game.

I get what you are saying, but at least in land battles- however absurd some of it is, you can argue that some of it makes sense:

Infantry die first because, well, they mostly did die first… 
Artillery?  They are behind the Infantry so they should survive longer- 
Mech/Armor- well, they have mobility and are armored… 
Aircraft are a little strange- there probably should be an air battle before land battle ala A&A 1914, but without AA firing at them (which they do in this game), they will last the longest.
AA Guns are new…  I guess these don’t fit the mold because now they are always the first to die after they fire.

In sea battles, Transports are always defended- whether they are transporting troops or supplies.